Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

stewart_maximus writes "The TSA is investigating a TSA deputized pilot who posted videos to YouTube pointing out security flaws. Flaws exposed include ground crew clearing security with just a card swipe while pilots have to go through metal detectors, and a 'medieval-looking rescue ax' being available on the flight deck. Three days after posting the video, 6 government officials arrived at his door to question him and confiscated his federal firearm (and his concealed weapon permit)."

Granted, I haven't seen all the videos this pilot made, but from what I have seen and read so far it sounds like what this pilot was pointing out was things that were already publicly known. Things like airport ground crews having access to restricted areas without themselves having to go through screening, no TSA agents searching them or anything they carry prior to having access to aircraft, etc. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence could have figured out what this pilot documented by just sitting at an airport and watching for a little while, or by getting chummy with airport employees at a nearby bar and asking a few basic questions.

And I certainly don't think this pilot was the first one to point out these flaws. It just sounds to me like the TSA is trying to make a scapegoat out of him.

The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?

That would only be true if they were searching the guy in the cockpit, but they aren't. They are searching a guy in a uniform walking into a terminal. The TSA agents have a tough enough time distinguishing between guns [examiner.com] and sticks of deodorant. It is unwise to expect them to be able to accurately verify the identity of someone who claims to be a pilot.

The persecution of this pilot isn't for giving away security secrets. It is for making a popular video on YouTube that exposes the security theater. The purpose of the TSA is to make the public feel like they are protected. Pointing out real security issues breaks the illusion.

The purpose of the theater is to make the public fearful, not protected. Our government needs a fearful public to enable the erosion of public rights. We gave up a bunch of rights with the Patriot Act that we would never have tolerated the loss of without the "it's for your protection" lie. TSA is part of the cover for this lie and others.

It does both. It gives those that didn't consider it a problem the idea that there is one (else, why would they search everyone like crazy) while at the same time calming those that are already properly hysteric (and make them feel protected by their wonderful government).

It's a CYA move "Look! We are doing everything we can to protect American lives." As far as any negative consequences? Well, as an elected official I would rather cover my ass from criticism than actually do the hard things. Hard things take time and I'm forced to focus most of my time on getting re-elected these days.

The point is not about the information being public. The point is about the public being aware of it. The TSA exists so that the general public will feel like they are being protected from dangerous terrorists when they travel.

If you are in a big city, take a look around, especially in busy areas. On one side, you see the things the public is supposed to see: storefronts, public transportation, police officers, SWAT teams that just sort of stand around, etc. On the other side, you see service entrances, maintenance corridors, and unlocked doors labeled "DO NOT ENTER." The general public is kept on their toes by constantly having reminders that they need to be protected pushed in their faces, and scary-looking people with guns and dogs do a good job of that (as do enhanced pat-downs, apparently). The fact that a determined terrorist could sneak past all the security is pretty much irrelevant.

It's one thing to mention the bits and pieces in isolation. It's quite a different matter to put them all together and point out the logical conclusion. Especially if you're someone as trusted as a pilot.

It's vital that "they" get him dismissed as a crackpot or some sort of dangerous traitor, ASAP. Otherwise, he's just undermined Big Brother's tenuous position.

I'm an ex-TSO (airport security actor). No, we didn't get screened. The background check they do on us goes back 10 years. They want a paramilitary organization. They're very honest about that. They prefer to hire ex-military since they want people trained to not think but will follow commands. The problem is the work injures a lot of people and you're not paid much. The turn-over rate is high. That's what gets in people who aren't ex-military.

The Nazi government of US of A has turned completely bat-shit insane. All it does is taking away personal freedoms from people:

Freedoms to speak (wikileaks), freedoms to think (public schools funded and guided by the dep't of education), freedoms to fair trial (Irwin Schiff, Guantanamo, private Manning...), freedoms to do business without harassment (Patriot Act, IRS, CIA, all the regulations and rules and subsidies and taxes), freedoms to deal in real money (Fed printing, 0% interest setting, destruction of currency).

The entire thing is rotten to the core, whether you agree with me on every point or not, but I am not interested in any consensus. My consensus is simple: gov't is cancer and it's killing the society through killing the economy and taking away people's freedoms.

Some justify the US federal gov't in what it does by bringing up the commerce clause, the general welfare clause etc., but since the gov't can justify anything it wants with those clauses right now it's time to ask yourself a question:

Is there a PURPOSE to the Constitution and what IS the purpose? Isn't the purpose of the Constitution to LIMIT the gov't in what it can do? If the commerce/welfare clauses allow the gov't to do whatever it wants, what is then the real purpose of the Constitution and why not just say: gov't can do whatever the fuck it wants and be done with the pretenses?

Compare what happened after 9/11 with the burning of the Reichstag. And what happened afterward. The parallel isn't perfect, but it's about as close as repeating history ever gets.

The federal government has been systematically destroying freedom in the U.S. for the past 100 years (at least). There have been a few advances, but, even with them, the government usually manages to take away at least as much as it gives (the civil rights movement led to things like enforced political correctness, busing, and racist hiring quotas).

It probably isn't fair to call America's government "Nazi," but it's well on its way to fascism. (And, no, fascism really isn't all that different from socialism...it's just one logical step further along the road back to feudalism).

"Foaming-at-the-mouth" lunacy doesn't really do any good to promote the cause of freedom. But I can understand the GP's frustration. I can't understand your complacency/collusion at all. Then again, America's always been an uneasy alliance between people who want to be free, the ones who want everyone to be slaves, and the ones who are determined to master everyone else.

Maybe it's time to admit that that alliance has failed, split it up, and go our separate ways. While we can still do so peacefully.

As a foreigner, I believe this is the only possible road for redemption of the former "land of the free and home of the brave" - the Russian Soviet Confederation was dismantled, the Chinese Confederation will be broken up too eventually, but the USA is the one most badly

Do you mean in the purely participatory act of choosing which collection of puppet figure heads we wanted?

This government was formed by the aristocracy for the aristocracy for one purpose... to make the peasants FEEL like they have a voice, and basically, to use the same logic that you just did to shut up and take whatever they give us.

At least state government is small enough for the people to have some effect on them, if still not much. Secession would go a long way towards making the gover

As long as you keep a system alive where the choice is the turd sandwich or the giant douche because any other choice you could field has no chance to be heard, there's little hope that even if you trade the people for some that are smart would change much.

Being realistic never meant you should just accept everything that is wrong. Compromising with evil makes you an accessory to evil. And even the impossible is worth fighting for, especially since sometimes taking on this impossible fight makes previously impossible things possible. People who fight an impossible fight like Rosa Parks [wikimedia.org], Nelson Mandela [wikimedia.org] or even Thich Quang Duc [wikimedia.org] are heroes because they refuse to compromise with injustice even in the face of prosecution, imprisonment and death.

Being realistic never meant you should just accept everything that is wrong. Compromising with evil makes you an accessory to evil.

All true, but that doesn't apply here. Laws like the US Patriot Act, organizations like the TSA, and wars like Iraq are ill-conceived and ineffective; they are not part of an evil master plan to subjugate Americans or take over the world. And if you treat them like that, you can't effectively work against them.

Educate yourself and others about politics and history, participate in the political process, donate, volunteer, write, expose, leak, whatever: that's the way things get better in a democracy. Dividing the world into "good" and "evil" is empty demagoguery.

There are degrees of evil, and degrees of participation in evil. What Stanley Milgram (and more recent experiments with deadly shocks) showed with his experiments is that any person has the potential for evil deeds... So it's not black-and-white indeed.

You're only going to be satisfied with some Libertarian utopian society.

They can already have their libertarian dream as a factory or mine boss in China so long as they don't say bad things about the government there. No annoying regulations, pay their workers whatever the poorest will accept, and if a few die that's their own problem for choosing to work for them isn't it?Meanwhile in a state that is supposed to be run for the benefit of the majority and not just the powerful we can do a hell of a lot bet

No. Capitalism requires the rule of law - i.e., a completely fair system to enforce everyone's right to their own property.

Without that, you just have gangsterism: property is (literally) theft. That's Somalia.

Libertarians who say "no government" actually mean "no government, except for law enforcement". Unfortunately libertarians often fall into the trap of believing their ideas are self-evident and obvious, which is no longer true. Consequently they don't always state exactly what they mean.

We did compromise, and the Constitution is the result of that compromise. We delegated certain limited powers to the central government, and despite the fact that they routinely ignore the limitations in the Constitution, it is nevertheless the entirety of the legal basis for the government's existence.

No, actually thats the lie. The purpose of the constitution was to create a central authority which could effectively put down peasant revolts, slave revolts, and deal with the Indians who were not happy about us moving into their lands.

At least, or at least, thats what some of the letters going around between the founding fathers were saying, right around the time of Shay's rebellion here in MA... you know, the one that happened after veterans of the revolution complained that they fought and many died and

At least, or at least, thats what some of the letters going around between the founding fathers were saying, right around the time of Shay's rebellion here in MA

First of all, which ones are you referring to? Secondly, I'm sure people had all sorts of motivations in participating in the writing of the Constitution. But individual motivations don't give the document its meaning or significance, that's determined by its eventual outcome and application. And the Constitution has been used to establish histor

Manning is sitting in a solitary cell for 23 hours a day for 200 days now even though he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.

He is being tortured by the US gov't, who is interested in one thing: find a way to charge Julian Assange with some sort of conspiracy, so they can prosecute him.

The torture of solitary confinement will lead to Manning's psychological health being compromised, this is a human rights violation right there and WHO in the US 'real media' is challenging the US gov't?

Manning is being tortured, he is not guilty of anything yet, he is being psychologically and also physically tortured, you can't hold a person hostage for 200 days in solitary confinement, deny them the right even to exercise in his own cell and expect him to be OK after that.

Although he did violate the Secrets Act (or whatever you Yanks call your version) there's evidence of a more serious breach there. Now I'm just a humble military contractor, so all I know is how to handle detailed drawings of military vehicles in a blend of commercial and military environments. With my work history, I know enough to... let's just say that if I was a Bad Guy then it would be a very interesting day if I snapped.

You, youngster, are a sick sumbitch. If I can't stand some pervert massaging my balls, I don't DESERVE a plane ride? WTF does deserving have to do with it? What's next - if I can't bend over for some freindly fornication from my local grocer, I don't DESERVE a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk?
I'll bet half the people in Washington and all the people at TSA think like you. Sick, sick, sick. I wish you'd all fuck off and die.

Sorry to break it to you, but the Constitution doesn't give anyone rights, on US soil or not. It enumerates certain rights, it lists certain limitations and powers of the government, but, as the Declaration of Independence states, people are ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . "
If you still don't believe it, see Amendment 9 : "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Except the pilot is not working for the TSA, he is working for an airline.

And let's put it in another perspective: TSA is not a company (correct me if I am wrong), it is public: which means he is informing the owners of the company (the public)about a problem with the management (the TSA policy makers).

...TSA is not a company (correct me if I am wrong), it is public: which means he is informing the owners of the company (the public)...

Nonsense. You don't get to just waltz into a military base and take a tank out for a ride, because you "own" it.

Perhaps collectively, you could say that the public owns everything that government does. But as individual private citizens we don't own government. We only determine it. It's independent of us, while being subject to our approval. Your right to information about the TSA's operations is limited to the FOIA. No more, no less.

That depends. If the security flaws were previously unknown outside my company, I'd expect to lose my job. But if I was pointing out what the whole world already knew, I wouldn't expect reprisals. Then again, I've always worked for at-least-somewhat-reasonable companies, not the 'batshit insane', (as one other poster put it), US government.

Not quite. He was publishing the flaws in a company (=airport) his company (=air line) delivers services to (=services).

Subtle but important difference. When I'm dealing with a company, especially if it's a fed owned company, I expect them to be able to deliver the goods and services they promise. If their security is actually just security theater that makes my job harder without increasing security altogether, I will inform my superiors and if they don't care, inform the owners of the other company.

This has nothing to do with terrorists winning, and everything to do with people who are friends and associates of those that are in power, taking advantage of a fictitious threat scenario, and cashing in on it. It's greed, plain and simple.

Idiots are getting more and more power granted to them, and making more and more cash in the process, all for dealing with this "threat" that they've manufactured. They will do anything and everything they can to perpetuate it, as long as they retain and grow that power base and make more and more money.

Security Theatre relies on keeping the public ignorant of what the real threats are, and of the proper ways to deal with them.

And the morons in charge are making laws to protect themselves and keep it all going.

This has nothing to do with terrorists winning, and everything to do with people who are friends and associates of those that are in power, taking advantage of a fictitious threat scenario, and cashing in on it. It's greed, plain and simple.

I don't know. bin Laden knows what he's doing, and his greatest weapon is fear. Fear drives people to act irrationally. What he wants is for the United States to become so fascist that the people outright rebel against it, causing civil war and the destruction of the USA. Were I in his place, I wouldn't be so optimistic. I doubt that people will engage in outright rebellion until it gets so bad, they can't even watch their television in peace. Also, even *if* the USA (as we know it) is destroyed, something very similar will probably take its place. It's not like we're suddenly going to become a feminist, socialist technocracy or an Islamic republic. We'll probably just rewrite the Constitution slightly and abolish a few of the worst aspects of today's government, then go on doing whatever it is that we were doing previously. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

Anyways, even if bin Laden is a bogeyman and our own government was behind 9/11 (or they consciously hijacked the tragedy for their own ends), it doesn't really change anything. The end result is the same. Fear, pseudo-change, and a new boss. Note that I'm not anti-Obama. I like Obama as much as the next guy who's apathetic about politicians and their promises. I just don't think that anyone who runs for political office can/will have much ability/desire to change the status quo, despite promises made. I meant "pseudo-change" in more of a grand sense, like how the French keep rewriting their Constitution and instituting new Republics. It's just the same old crap, under a different name.

Ah, the believable, sane version of the "truthers": "or they consciously hijacked the tragedy for their own ends." Politicians are explicitly good at that sort of thing -- hijacking events which impress upon the public for their own advantage.

What did Bin Laden want? According to any government information I'm aware of, he hates us because of our liberties and our freedom, he wants us to fear and cower and strip us of our western way of liberalism and that "American way of life".

If we do get to the point where we rewrite the Constitution, we need to put some teeth in that sucker. For instance, establish a points-based system for unconstitutional laws. If a law is overturned as being unconstitutional, every member of congress (both the House and the Senate) gets one "point". Get to 10 points, and you are automatically barred from reelection or holding any kind of elective office, ever again. Get to 15 points and you're kicked out of office before the expiration of your current term. As it is now, Congress can pass all the fucked up laws they want with no danger of being called to account for it.

Why would you need a Constitution at all with such an approach? If the legislature can just vote in anything they like under the grounds that popular mandate gives it "constitutionality", then you have parliamentary supremacy in practice, British-style. This is precisely what the US founding fathers wanted to avoid, hence the whole "checks and balances" thing.

If revolution really takes hold in the US you'll want to get out, fast. The weak will hand over their power, possessions and freedoms to those they see as strong and who promise to lead them.

The US south would become theocratic, the North and coastal regions, who knows. But if the people depose the current government structure, don't think for a second a better one will come into place without years of strife and bloodshed.

What he wants is for the United States to become so fascist that the people outright rebel against it, causing civil war and the destruction of the USA.

The impression I get from what has been said about the tapes is that he will have hit his goal once the USA is seen as something that the Saudi rulers and possibly others in the region can not associate with if they want to retain power.He may be happy if the USA were to disintegrate as a side effect, but pretending that was his initial goal as many opportun

Idiots are getting more and more power granted to them, and making more and more cash in the process, all for dealing with this "threat" that they've manufactured. They will do anything and everything they can to perpetuate it, as long as they retain and grow that power base and make more and more money.

Ground crew have privileged access to secure areas of the airport that demands more security, not less. Make them do an iris scan and enter a passcode in addition to swiping their badge.

Unless the ground crew also go through the wonderful new nudey-scan machines (or are otherwise touched up and fondled) EVERY TIME they cross into air-side then there's a glaring hole in the process! Any one of the ground crew could be turned (I've got your daughter and you will carry this item through and hand it to my partner air-side) or simply go postal, or be a long-time plant or sleeper, which means they MUST be subject to searches to prevent them from carrying any of the otherwise disallowed items air-side. Hell, they don't even need to be suicide jockeys they can just plant the stuff for the suicide squad to pick up once they clear the security theatre as regular passengers!

C'mon, think like a terrorist for a moment and realize that planes are safe from terrorist attacks, at least for now.

Why?

Because that's where you'd expect them to happen. And surprise is not only the most powerful weapon of the Spanish inquisition. One key element of terror is that you are not supposed to know when it strikes. That's one crucial part of it, maybe the most important one. Else it's just yet another mass murder. It's terror because it creates fear, not only because it creates a lot of bodies.

Wow. Airport 'security' is a joke, and almost everyone knows it; a Google search for "security theater" turns up over a half-million results. Yet this guy tells us something that we're all aware of already, and gets put throught the mill because of it. It's bad enough when people get crucified for revealing some hidden truth, but when it happens to someone who is simply stating the obvious, that's just sad.

Just what ARE we paying these clowns for anyway? They should go back to allowing knitting needles on planes; pissed off Grandmas would probably deal with terrorists a whole lot more effectively than these clueless idiots.

How much of this security theater can be solved with a bomb-sniffing dog? Instead of checking each new thing for a bomb and still not being able to find them, a dog can just smell the explosive wherever it happens to be hidden. But no, we don't want to do that, that's too obvious, cheap, and easy. We'd much rather have a 1000x more expensive, incomplete and cumbersome solution.

Dogs seem to be mostly used for security theater themselves. Their false positive rate is probably too high for widespread use (though useful when an excuse is needed to scrutinize an individual), and the TSA doesn't seem like a very good source of people who could become handlers.

No expense or effort must be spared in burying the truth. The truth must be obscured under all conditions. There is nothing worse than truth bursting out. Freedom of suppression, the right to suppress the truth, must reign supreme.

Somewhere in all this talk about tERRORism there is a larger, hidden problem. It's plain before our faces, but most of the prominent stakeholders in the debate seem oblivious to it. But it is of capital importance that we find ways to bring this root problem out in the open and deal with it.

FTFA: "Late last month a 50-year-old pilot, who asked that his name and the airline he works for not be made public, took a series of videos with his cell phone to show major flaws he says still exist in airport security systems."

Who wants to take bets that cell phones will now be required to be stowed in checked baggage, due to the "security threat" the camera phones pose?

The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified.He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.Sacramento-area pilot punished for YouTube video [news10.net]

The sad part is it's probably more likely that two pilots have the same name then that same set of credentials.

As far as I know, "ax" is acceptable in American English, British English only permits "axe". I noticed TFA's inability to spell "hassled" in the headline far more.
On an unrelated note, I wonder whether they would have pressed charges were the employee in question to have disclosed the vulnerabilities only to the TSA. It's been done in the context of comp security, so I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it happen to someone reporting on physical security.

Yes, so everyone, "Assume Crash Positions!" Also, hide under your school desk when a nuclear bomb is coming.

There are a lot of very stupid and very angry people who vote. They will be given the question "why didn't you do anything about this" to ask. And they will keep asking it over and over again even when the correct answer is "nothing can be 100% effective and even trying to do something will cause more harm than good." It's just what happens.

I'm going to do the same thing about it that we do about the 40,000 odd traffic fatalities every year: Nearly nothing.

We don't invade privacy and remove freedoms because so many people die in traffic accidents. Why should we because of some vague "terrorist" threat? Honestly, airport security never has and never will stop a determined terrorist. We need to simply have an adult conversation with the American people and perhaps increase the educational investment in mathematics education. Perhaps, if they understood statistics a bit better, then they wouldn't run around like idiots demanding that something be DONE about what amounts to a non-threat.

We don't invade privacy and remove freedoms because so many people die in traffic accidents.

But we will.

Some politcos are reportedly trying to force auto manufacturers to include rear-view cameras on every new car sold in America. Once that's in place, how long do you think it will be before they're required to install cameras on all four sides of the car, and record video 24/7? 'If it saves only one life', etc.

Now, as someone who does his best to drive safely, I can see that having video of some tailgating idiot crashing into my car could be a good thing when I want to prove the accident wasn't m

Those weapons and permits are issued to them. Just as a cop's issued firearm and badge are taken from them if they are under suspension or investigation, so were his. Notice it said his "federal firearm". This wasn't a gun he went and bought at the local gun shop or a permit he went down to the county courthouse to get. They were federally issued documents and equipment that he had to go through a federal training class to get. They are not his property no more than a soldier's issued M-4 is his proper

Regular CC permits are not applicable to planes. I know, I have one. You have to have a special permit, issued by the federal government, that allows you to carry on planes. This is issued to Air Marshals and pilots in the program. They took away his permit to use and carry a gun on a plane. The mention of a conceal carry permit is a summary(and possibly article) fail.

Whoops, actually, I was wrong on that. The local sheriff asked him to relinquish his CCP. California state law may prohibit the possession of firearms(and therefore carry permits) under certain circumstances, this may be one of them. I'm having trouble finding the exact legal codes surrounding surrender of permit in California.

The law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, but in most cases, the law assumes you are guilty. For example, if you are suspected of a violent crime, they will lock you up until your court date, even though they have not proven you guilty. Meanwhile, you might lose your job, your spouse, get raped and any other number of inconveniences and persecutions, and if they find you not guilty, well, the pat on the shoulder on your way out really helps doesn't it?